Emma Clark, employment specialist at law firm Fox, said: “The court decided today that BA was justified in applying a blanket ban on the wearing of visible jewellery for a customer-facing employee. This decision is a sensible interpretation of the nuances of the indirect discrimination legislation; Eweida’s desire to display a cross around her neck in the workplace was a personal choice and not a religious requirement.

“Eweida has claimed that she will now appeal to the Supreme Court but in the meantime, employers can feel more confident in imposing dress codes and banning the full veil and other religious symbols which are not clearly required by an employee’s religion.”

In 2007, BA changed its uniform policy, which saw Eweida return to work as she was allowed to wear her cross.

Darren Sherborne, head of employment at law firm Rickerbys, warned employers were still in the dark as to whether a blanket ban on religious symbols could be fully justified.

“This is not a helpful ruling to employers who remain none the wiser as to what is acceptable when balancing the different rights of different interest groups,” he said. “It’s also a surprising ruling in view of the claims that other religions were permitted to wear religious jewellery, and it may cause something of a backlash.”